"...That statement said that the embassy "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." The statement was issued before protesters breached the embassy."http://news.yahoo.com/obama-condemns...-election.html

hurt feelings...boo freakin hoo......
why not condemn these groups for having thin skin about Mohammad and koran burning. What a double standard! I completely side with Romney's remarks on this one. Obama comes across trying to play both sides. Take a freakin stand. It's my understanding that they are placing the blame on a movie . A freakin movie!!!!!
why not just blame the radical protesters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

I also heard that they were chanting Obama Obama there are a million more Osamas........if that's true, I guess we know where to place the "spiking blame"......

evacuate embassy, let them take it over, then have our military remove it from the face of the Earth

The statement you quote was not Obama's, it came from the Cairo embassy BEFORE the attack, in direct response to a particular incident.

One of the things Obama said, in response to the attack: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence, none." Pretty straightforward.

"......Romney said in his earlier statement that he was outraged by the attacks and the administration's early response seemed to sympathize with the attackers. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the administration had delivered “an apology for America’s values.” In fact, it had done no such thing: Religious tolerance, as much as freedom of speech, is a core American value.

Mr. Obama struck the right tone on Wednesday, saying that “we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” but that “there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.” Lauding Mr. Stevens’s service, the president promised “justice” for “this terrible act” while also committing the administration to continue cooperating with Libya’s democratic government — which apologized for the attack.

"America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We'll defend, also, our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. Apology for America's values is never the right course." I don't see how this statement in the WSJ is patently false or foolish. Experts now are claiming the attack may have not had anything to do with the movie anyway.

"Further, there is doubt that the film was even the cause of the attacks that took the life of Stevens and the three other Americans.

CNN is reporting that an attack such as the one that killed Stevens, with rocket-launched grenades, would have required pre-planning, and is likely the work of Al Qaeda in North Africa. That group swore revenge for the June killing of a senior leader of the terror group Abu Yahya al-Libi, and has struck in Benghazi before."

Romney's disgusting opportunism is likely going to bite him in the a$$. Already he's being slammed by plenty of republicans who actually know a thing or two about foreign policy.

"I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

That lie was apparently based on a message released by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo before the attack, which was designed to reduce tensions inflamed by the hate-speech of Terry Jones and his Muslim-hating supporters, who are promoting a despicably anti-Islam film via YouTube. The Cairo Embassy statement read: “The United States Embassy in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” It didn’t come from either President Obama or the State Department, and it was issued before the killings in Benghazi, not after them.

Romney had a chance to correct the record, and at least acknowledge that the Cairo Embassy statement didn’t come from Obama himself, and that it preceded the killings. But he didn’t. “When our grounds are being attacked and being breached, the first response should be outrage,” he told reporters. “Apology for America’s values will never be the right course. We express immediately when we feel that the President and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America.” The incredulous traveling press corps pushed Romney on his dishonesty but he didn’t back down."

In response to Mitt Romney's criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of recent violence in Egypt and Libya, President Obama told CBS News on Wednesday that Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain in McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News Wednesday that Romney's "comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake."

"There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points," he said. "And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."

In a statement to CBS News, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said, "Governor Romney's ill-advised and politically-motivated statement last night concerning the tragedy in Benghazi is deeply regrettable."

I am certainly not saying that Obama’s foreign policy or national security moves are off limits in this campaign. Those who questioned the Libya incursion from the left or the right may well have grounds to raise those questions again. But let’s be clear: That’s not what Romney did. He’s flip-flop-flipped on Obama’s Libya policies, coming out for toppling Gadhafi before he was against it. Or was it the other way around? Who knows? Probably not even Romney.

And of course Romney himself once condemned Jones and his plan to burn a Quran as “wrong on every level. It puts troops in danger, and it violates a founding principle of our republic.” Of course George W. Bush criticized the decision of Danish newspapers and magazines to publish cartoons demeaning Mohammed as likewise destructive to Western relations with the Islamic world.

So Romney wasn’t criticizing Obama’s Libya policy with his statement. He was lying. He was making cheap political points out of the killings of four American public servants. From his tin-eared criticism of our closest ally during the Olympics, to his bluster on sensitive dealings with China and Iran, to his failure to even mention troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during his Tampa speech, Romney is proving he would be a disaster as president.

Critics (and even some admirers) have pointed to Romney’s success at Bain Capital and noted that it was predicated on his willingness to do anything it took to close a deal. Mr. Bain will do or say anything to close the deal on his presidential run, including lie. It’s ugly, and it won’t work. Romney will pay for his cruel Sept. 11 opportunism in November.http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt..._be_president/

You mean like the cheap flip flopping democrats did on the wars? You know the ones they voted for and then lied and attacked Bush for on every turn? Then campaigned to stop the wars to get Congress and still did nothing. You mean those types of lies? Don't talk about flip flopping and out right lying.

Jeremy is correct. It is Obama's fault but I tend to lean toward Obama let it happen on purpose or was it made it happen on purpose? Don't know for sure which one. Which one did Bush do? It must certainly be the other.....

This morning, these militants are on the roof of the embassy, burning the American flag and flying the Al qaeda flag. The crowd is chanting, death to America. There are "protests" at other embassies. Our state dept is calling for calm to those of us that oppose these events. There is also measured responses coming from the White House.

stop calling this a protest!
Why weren't all of our embassies heavily gaurded on the first 9-11 after Osama was killed?

an American diplomat has been slain

anything short of bombing to remove the building and the militants, is weakness! Afterwards, the President should get on TV and let the world know that similar events will not be tolerated.

anything short of a military response, will result in an esculation of these "protests" across the region.

Yes, the best way to get foreigners (oh wait, I mean citizens of sovereign nations) to stop burning the American flag is for Americans to kill them.

I'm glad I don't live in your crazy alternate reality, Cliff.

What SHOULD happen is that the egyptian military, with our consent, should storm this place and kick the yahoos out and return it to American control. Just like we would do if a ragtag bunch of teabaggers in tricorner hats stormed and held the Egyptian embassy in Washington. Conducting an offensive military action in Egypt (an ally, you may recall) would be the dumbest thing I've heard suggested in quite some time.

Cliff, are you insane? I was trying to be subtle but I guess that didn't get the point across. As Shawn said, if this happened here with a bunch of idiot Americans instead of idiot Egyptians, how would you feel about a foreign military presence bombing Americans on US soil?

The solution is probably somewhere between the two, but allowing it to continue on without so much as an angry speech from our "leader", just puts more Americans and embassies in danger. If yall can't see that, well, .....

Cliff, are you insane? I was trying to be subtle but I guess that didn't get the point across. As Shawn said, if this happened here with a bunch of idiot Americans instead of idiot Egyptians, how would you feel about a foreign military presence bombing Americans on US soil?

Yes, diplomatically speaking and according to international law they are. They are tiny islands of US soil surrounded by Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni territory. I can't think of any international precedent for a "kill 'em all" rambo style recapture of an embassy. The legal fiction that that is american soil is really an element of respect between governments internationally. We will recognize your sovereignty within our territory if you recognize ours. Which is why I raise the point that defense and recapture of an embassy, and punishment of those who trespassed is really an issue for the host country.

If a bunch of tea party redneck did this to the egyptian embassy in DC, I would expect that US authorities, with the consent of the Egyptians, would intervene. I certainly wouldn't expect, appreciate, or condone an Egyptian special forces rescue mission.

This is a risk of international diplomacy. Most of it relies on trust and good faith.

I don't disagree with you entirely Shawndoggy. I am also one of those arrogant Americans that don't think we always have to play by the same rules.

There is alot at risk here by sending a passive message to those that rise up against us. We will NEVER "win over" the middle east. There will always be a percentage of the population that hates Americans. i am not in favor of pretending that this will EVER change. If they want to get along with us, great. If not, we should strike hard, fast, and with deliberate intent to declare that we will not be pushed past a certain point. The message should be: if you cross this clear line that we have drawn, it WILL cost you. If you want to be diplomatic and peaceful, that's great too......

Yes, diplomatically speaking and according to international law they are. They are tiny islands of US soil surrounded by Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni territory. I can't think of any international precedent for a "kill 'em all" rambo style recapture of an embassy. The legal fiction that that is american soil is really an element of respect between governments internationally. We will recognize your sovereignty within our territory if you recognize ours. Which is why I raise the point that defense and recapture of an embassy, and punishment of those who trespassed is really an issue for the host country.

If a bunch of tea party redneck did this to the egyptian embassy in DC, I would expect that US authorities, with the consent of the Egyptians, would intervene. I certainly wouldn't expect, appreciate, or condone an Egyptian special forces rescue mission.

This is a risk of international diplomacy. Most of it relies on trust and good faith.

So we should get let them overrun and kill our diplomats? There is a big difference between that happening here, and it happening there.

So we should get let them overrun and kill our diplomats? There is a big difference between that happening here, and it happening there.

Are the only choices to do absolutely nothing or declare war and invade? What exactly would you "hit" in this case? Or would we just invade and occupy?

We've put a destroyer off of the libyan coast and are sending the FBI... is that doing nothing?

I'm sure there's going to be some answering for why the consulate office was so easy to penetrate, but where we are trying to gain favor with a people who have been cut off from ordinary relations with the USA for so long, putting diplomats in a compound with 20' high blast walls might not be the best introduction either.

By all accounts the ambassador was there because he wanted to be and there was probably nobody who could be a better judge of the local political mood than him. And everybody is wrong once in a while.

You mean like the cheap flip flopping democrats did on the wars? You know the ones they voted for and then lied and attacked Bush for on every turn? Then campaigned to stop the wars to get Congress and still did nothing. You mean those types of lies? Don't talk about flip flopping and out right lying.

Jeremy is correct. It is Obama's fault but I tend to lean toward Obama let it happen on purpose or was it made it happen on purpose? Don't know for sure which one. Which one did Bush do? It must certainly be the other.....

Delta, I was being sarcastic. Don't go getting a chubby all of the sudden.

This morning, these militants are on the roof of the embassy, burning the American flag and flying the Al qaeda flag. The crowd is chanting, death to America. There are "protests" at other embassies. Our state dept is calling for calm to those of us that oppose these events. There is also measured responses coming from the White House.

stop calling this a protest!
Why weren't all of our embassies heavily gaurded on the first 9-11 after Osama was killed?

an American diplomat has been slain

anything short of bombing to remove the building and the militants, is weakness! Afterwards, the President should get on TV and let the world know that similar events will not be tolerated.

anything short of a military response, will result in an esculation of these "protests" across the region.

Romney needs to voice this.........

Wasn't Obama recently criticized for military action in Libya? A tyrant was removed from the face of the planet, and the GOP complained. Now they are complaining Obama isn't doing enough? I mean WTF? Regardless of your political affiliation, if you can't see the blatant hypocrisy, you need to remove your head from your rectum.

What's really funny is that I thought Shawndoggy got one every time he said "Teabaggers". He really likes that phrase.

only once and I'm pretty flacid over it. If you can think of another homegrown USA group that would be fired enough to do something as dumb as the clueless egyptians, I'm all for it. The TEA par-tayers seem to have a lot of the "right stuff": outrage, motivation, and less than complete understanding of global geopolitics.

I'm sure we could find groups of americans who are dumber, but they probably aren't motivated or outraged enough to storm an embassy.

Do Not vote for Romney, he will get US into a war with Iran, he already said he will increase the size of the military, but for what? Put 2 and 2 together, this nut actually thinks a war will stimulate the economy.

There are rumors that they were raped before they were killed too. I hope the third world filth that caused this to happen all suffer through agony and pain for many hours before they can finally reach death. Absolutely disgusting.

Do Not vote for Romney, he will get US into a war with Iran, he already said he will increase the size of the military, but for what? Put 2 and 2 together, this nut actually thinks a war will stimulate the economy.

Not suggesting we should start another war but war does stimulate the economy. It ended the great depression

Are the only choices to do absolutely nothing or declare war and invade? What exactly would you "hit" in this case? Or would we just invade and occupy?

We've put a destroyer off of the libyan coast and are sending the FBI... is that doing nothing?

I'm sure there's going to be some answering for why the consulate office was so easy to penetrate, but where we are trying to gain favor with a people who have been cut off from ordinary relations with the USA for so long, putting diplomats in a compound with 20' high blast walls might not be the best introduction either.

By all accounts the ambassador was there because he wanted to be and there was probably nobody who could be a better judge of the local political mood than him. And everybody is wrong once in a while.

Well, I didn't say anything about "hit" or "invade," but you would think some armed security forces could have kept them at bay until help arrived.

I thought the way people bashed bush was wrong and they outrageous things that were said and accused him of were way out of line especially with a voting record and actual quotes that stated the same people doing the bashing also voted and believed the very same things. I will never forgive them for that especially when I live in a liberal state that is so out there that they make that stuff look like kids play. Go to a progressive website and start reading. They are so out there that they blame the filmmaker for the muslims murderous ways. The irony, leftist who claim free speech when they are blasting Christians and Republicans, but are the first to blame the flim maker when the muslims get off the chain? What is wrong with you leftist?

For the record, I have not blamed anyone but those ******* muslims. If you really understood the culture, you would understand this is the mentality of ....well, the culture. This is not the first time this has happened. How many countries has this happened in? Over how many decades? They do not think the way we do. The only hope the US has is that the changes we made in Iraq can some how take hold and they can use their wealth and influence to slowly change the culture. It is a tall task and a very long process. How do you deal with a culture that stopped progressing in 800 AD? If you want to know what is coming the worlds way, look at the UK. If you can not understand and learn from others lessons, then you can not ever learn. These people do not understand anything but strength. They have been a subjegated (sp?) culture and are subject to group think. There is pretty much nothing you can but keep and eye on them, smack them and then go back to watching. We found out during the Clinton years, that sending in the FBI does not make them fearful. It empowered them. They know we basically did nothing in return and the attacks got bigger and more violent. That is what the current president is doing. I don't believe in cultural relativism. I know there are inferior cultures and I am ok with that. I am pretty sure we all talked about this, but, I knew when the president started off by first going on a world apology tour when he got in office, he would empower the worlds idiots. These actions really did not surprise me one bit frankly. It was very predictable unfortunately.

So, next time you guys wonder why America supported people in the past that turned out to not be so great guys and then want to hate your own country for it, look no further than what is happening now. Comes a time where a-holes with be a-holes and there is nothing that will change it. You sometimes have to support people that will put the hammer on them for you instead of wasting our lives and fortune. To quote Denny Green, "They are who we thought they were!!!!"

Like it or not folks, Delta is exactly right. These people cannot be reasoned with. Cannot understand other's views. And cannot change their DNA. This mentality has been cultivated for 1000's of years, where we (other parts of the globe - free world) has had 100's of years to try to understand other's, adopt acceptance and believe in personal freedoms. They hate everything and anything that non-islamists believe and hold dear.

As it was stated yesterday, this was not so much about a internet video and more about 9-11. Why were we duped to believe anything else? Because we too are subjected to and succumb to group think from time to time. Now that we have clarity, we need to act. We need to act quickly and with deadly accuracy.

Sending in the FBI is a huge mistake. I mean, how BA is the FBI? Sure, I wouldn't want them coming to my house and going to my trash, but do I really want them digging around a culture of people who purely believe and can be purely lead to do anything in the name of religion; including murder and rape of innocent people? Also, in the case of the murdered ambassador, they did heinous acts to someone who was stated to truly love Libya. In other words, someone who loved and believed in the people of Libya.

You'll get no argument from me about how stupid religious zealots are (which is why they are so easily manipulated, at home and abroad). And extremist Islam is a blight, FAR more so than any other extremist religious fringe, for a crapload of cultural and historical reasons. But get practical for one minute - despite all this stupidity and cultural violence etc. there is a far huger body of moderate muslims (just like the vast majority of Christians in this country who are moderates). You go bombing foreign countries, ratcheting up collateral damage etc. and you begin to radicalize more and more of those people, just like moderate Christians get in a tizzy over here about the "war on Christmas" and other things every bit as stupid as this cheesy movie. Just multiple the stupidity and the violence x1000 when it comes to Islam in a bassackwards middle eastern country... Not to mention making Americans a target the world over on a scale not even close to what we're seeing here...

Cliff, I understand your anger and frustration but JFC I for one am glad your finger isn't on the trigger.

Wes
apparently the difference in how we view the middle east is; you believe that we can control or change the culture, I don't.

If 10% of these people across the globe fall within the "radical" category, that translates to a group that is larger than half the population of the U.S.

that's large enough for me!

you must believe that diplomacy might one day spread a warm fuzzy feeling to their younger generations and reduce the percentage of the "radical" group.
I believe that a strong, deliberate approach (military) will make them think twice, and perhaps embolden the 90% to take stronger measures from within.
I lean more towards the ....don't mess with the bull or you will get the horns......(without any real expectation of changing who they are and how they view us).....approach

got lots more on this one, but it's time to go watch good old American high school sports, in a town that hasn't turned completely PC or apologetic ........

Since Cliff brought up Billy Badass Reagan and what he did in Libya, lest you forget what Reagan did when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut. Selective amnesia? Maybe we should wage wars against four or five of the countries and keep that debt escalating? That was the talk of last week, the debt. Now it's eff the debt.

I believe that to blame this movie as the cause of this violence is to way oversimplify the issue. We all know the middle east is a powderkeg, and the complicated nature and countless pockets of frustration and anger are definitely being used by terrorists to whip up fervor against America. I think you paint with too broad a brush.

by asking Americans with free speech to remove a video so as not to upset people of other countries, he is pretty much saying: hey guys, sorry that upset yall and made you feel like yall had to riot....I made 'en take it down. We won't offend your sensitive feelings anymore........

what else would you call it..

and.......he and Clinton pretty much condemned the video and angry American sentiment, saying that now is a time to consider Muslim feelings on the matter. They FOLLOWED with violence is unacceptable.
I took that to mean: you guys are wrong to make fun of the muslim beliefs because it will anger muslims, and it's their right to be upset as long as they don't become violent.......

well, they will become violent....it's what they have said that they will do if we animate Mohamed, burn the koran, or make fun of islam. Instead of trying to thwart free speech because they are afraid of the results.....the WORLD ought to place complete blame on the wack jobs that get violent.....

I stand by my point of view....
Obama went on a muslim world apology tour when he first got elected, and he continues it today.......

those people with the signs in the last post were more than likely not the ones on the buildings, removing the flag. Blow the building, and remove those that are our enemies (on our "soil")

also, isn't it odd that after the muslim morning of prayer, things got even worse, not better?
Why don't their highest ranking clerics condemn violence against the infidel daily?
Why aren't they all over the tv stations daily preaching a peaceful relationship with the west?

I don't get where you think I want another war, or to eradicate the human race. I believe that a strong stance against islamic extremists actually saves lives. I also believe that a weak stance costs lives. We have the weapons capability to take out the embassy and only the embassy......and of course those on it. I stated previously how I believe that would act as more of a deterrent than a call to war.

If you want to disagree on that premise.....feel free, but don't put words in my mouth.

and NO, removing the video is giving in to terrorists. It's a passive stance that I don't believe "they" will EVER listen to. I don't believe America should retreat against terrorists.

I also find it funny that people are talking about how they think that electing Romney will immediately lead to a war with Iran. I got news.....the only way to avoid a war with Iran, is to completely disassociate ourselves with our eastern allies and/or stop Iran's nuclear "progress". Short of that, it won't matter who is in the Oval Office.....

and I'm still waiting on your response to the Geithner Ryan talks about our national debt crisis.......and Obama's inability to submit a budget that is below $trillion, and one that his own senate will approve.

as far as the barrack bombing, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Reagan's lack of a response actually did what I am claiming. It emboldened the enemy.
The historical lessons that we should take from that and the events in the following 2-3 years, is that if we are involved in middle eastern affairs, we will always be a target. That lesson has never officially been learned.

If you are looking at it from a different angle, please enlighten. I actually take into account your opinions, as long as they are presented in a civil manner

I don't get where you think I want another war, or to eradicate the human race. I believe that a strong stance against islamic extremists actually saves lives. I also believe that a weak stance costs lives. We have the weapons capability to take out the embassy and only the embassy......and of course those on it. I stated previously how I believe that would act as more of a deterrent than a call to war.

If you want to disagree on that premise.....feel free, but don't put words in my mouth.

and NO, removing the video is giving in to terrorists. It's a passive stance that I don't believe "they" will EVER listen to. I don't believe America should retreat against terrorists.

I also find it funny that people are talking about how they think that electing Romney will immediately lead to a war with Iran. I got news.....the only way to avoid a war with Iran, is to completely disassociate ourselves with our eastern allies and/or stop Iran's nuclear "progress". Short of that, it won't matter who is in the Oval Office.....

This was a post of yours a couple of days ago: "should have dropped the bomb a few days ago..."
I just assumed (maybe incorrectly??) that when you said "dropped the bomb", you meant a nuclear weapon. And I don't know how kindly Pakistan, Russia, and China are going to react when we start launching nuclear missles in their backyards.

The second part of your post I bolded because it seems that you take a stance that America as a whole supports the message in the video. The rest of the world doesn't play by the same set of rules we do (even people in our country don't play by the same set of rules).

As far as war with Iran, experts have said the only way to stop Iran's nuclear program is a massive military ground effort which has a price tag double of what the Iraq and Afghan war has cost.

"as far as the barrack bombing, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Reagan's lack of a response actually did what I am claiming. It emboldened the enemy."

If that was your true intent, why the Reagan post boasting what he did in Libya? How I read it was that if Reagan was president, then sheet would be getting taken care of. I simply mentioned Beirut because after the bombing, there was no retaliation from Reagan, he removed all US troops from Lebanon.

nope. Not in favor of nuclear. I AM in favor of keeping our arsenal tho.

I haven't watched the video and I don't really care to. My opinions have more to do with censoring America vs the U.S. telling them to get over it. They have an extreme double standard when it comes to what is offensive. I find beheading a journalist, calling for a jihad to kill all Christians, threatening us with death if a depiction of muhammad shows up on a South Park, to be offensive.
I do understand that other parts of the world don't always agree with what is produced here. Those countries ought to filter content if they want to, not us.

I agree with your Iran comment. I'm not really in favor of another war. I am also pretty concerned about what action Iran will take once it gets a nuke. Their leaders seem to have some very specific/radical opinions about what they want to see happen in their part of the world.

in all seriousness, I just liked the poster. If I could have found one of John Wayne, I would have used that one....

the truth is, that every President in my lifetime has blundered dealings with the middle east one way or the other. There is no clear, right answer.

I am just not in favor of the passive appeasement approach. It would be nice if they would solve it themselves. I think that they need to fear the U.S.
Perhaps that would keep them busy killing each other and not us...

Cliff, I understand what you are saying (I think) and agree - speak softly and carry a big stick.

But again, I think you oversimplify the problem over there and the incredible diversity of people and thought - not to mention the corruption of leaders (both political and religious and in many cases they are one and the same) and resulting misinformation and pathetic lack of education, news/information, etc...